[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

.

Part 2/2.

Other Divine Laws & Statutes

Clean and Unclean Animals: Noah was commanded to take seven pairs of "clean" animals and only two of "unclean" animals into the Ark [Genesis 7:2]. What we have recorded is God providing the skins of animals as a covering for Adam and Eve's shame. It can be assumed that God subsequently commanded A&E to sacrifice, or it can be assumed that A&E caught on to a thing God had exemplified. No record of God requiring/commanding blood sacrifice is written. The incident with Cain not offering an acceptable sacrifice may have led, in the absence of a command for a particular sacrifice, to take care not to offer an unacceptable sacrifice i.e., clean or unclean. This may have led to the understanding that some animals were acceptable and some not. While this is making great use of speculation, the absence of any record of command may justify this. An absence of the recording of an important thing fuels this assumption.

Dietary Restrictions (Blood): God forbade Noah and his descendants from eating meat with its life-blood still in it [Genesis 9:4]. Agreed, applicable to all. Also given to Noah was the law of capital punishment.

Tithing: Abraham gave a tenth of his spoils to Melchizedek [Genesis 14:20], and Jacob vowed to give God a tenth of everything he received [Genesis 28:22]. Things stated as events are just that. That an event happened does not automatically mean it was commanded. For example, Abraham's tithing. There is no record that God commanded Abraham to tithe. But he does; out of a heart of gratitude?

Circumcision: Established as a covenant sign for Abraham and his descendants [Genesis 17:10-14]. Circumcision was commanded of Abraham (and his descendants). It only applied to him and no other, as opposed to the Decalogue which applies to many. That the Law later was given to his descendants must then have necessitated this Abraham-specific law also be incorporated in the Law given to his descendants. What applied to Abraham also applied to his descendants. It came first as to Abraham, and was added to the Law, which was added to the covenant made with Abraham, later. Can it be correctly said they were two separate covenants, which merged or is Sinai an extension of Abraham's?

Sacrificial System: Cain and Abel offered sacrifices [Genesis 4:3-5], and the patriarchs regularly built altars to offer burnt offerings to God [Genesis 8:20, 12:7, 26:25]. What we have recorded is God providing the skins of animals as a covering for Adam and Eve's shame. It can be assumed that God subsequently commanded A&E to sacrifice or it can be assumed that A&E caught on to a thing God had exemplified. No record of something important, God requiring/commanding blood sacrifice, is recorded.

The Patriarchs practiced that which was exemplified by those who went before. If God had commanded this, then we have no record of it. It is only an assumption to say so, the same as it is an assumption to say they learnt sacrifice by God's example.

When the phrase 'process of time' is stated, it could refer to either showing regard to instruction from God or the practice which A&E had started from God's example.

The statement made by God about 'sin lying at the door' refers to the anger of Cain and not his supposed disobedience to a command to sacrifice animals. If thought disobedience, then it could be to God or the example of A&E. What we know for certain is that the record, thought to usually show things of importance, does not give a source for a practice which is seen in the phrase 'process of time'.

It can be assumed that Cain, as a carnal man, missed by accident or rebelled against that which A&E had taught their children about sacrifice. In the absence of seeing a record of important things (already demonstrated in the important things which are seen as recorded) it may be more likely that sacrifice was not instructed by God. When Cain didn't practice what was taught by Man, then he rebelled against that which was being established as a norm by his parents - blood sacrifice.

Abraham's Legacy: Scripture explicitly summarizes this era of pre-Sinai law in Genesis 26:5, where God states that Abraham "obeyed My voice and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws". Indeed. The Lord did say these words, but he wasn't pre-figuring the Law he and we know was to come. Yet his saying this would not be the same as giving the Law for a country or the world. These commands were words spoken for Abraham. It was God who first labelled his Words with this phrase. Does God borrow terms from the future to apply them today? I think not. But he does say words today which will be quoted in the future. These words here were first spoken to Abraham before the giving of the Law. It is not inconceivable to think that they were memorably recognized and then later applied to other memorable words, such as the Law.

************
God has always had a moral code within himself, in his nature. Moral codes for Man reflect the nature of God, the Holy One. If God expected that Adam and Eve would have a moral code, then where would it have come from when he hadn't yet given his Word. Well he did. He gave one command, which did not a complete moral code make. That we know of, morals comes from within and also from the law of God when given.

Moral codes for Man have been expressed over time through his Word. We received the Word over a time span of many, many years. If it is thought that we only get a moral code by God's Word, then we've been given moral code by dribs and drabs. But, does waiting 2500 yrs for Sinai show God abandoning Man to make their own moral code? Wouldn't a God with concern and wisdom provide a means not left to chance or the whim of Man? Of course. He provided A&E, and everyone later, a moral code by means of the image of God, the conscience, and the use of the intellect.

Read carefully. Thus, what is known as right living, came about as brought-on by the God-given nature which then provided them a moral code, doing so for those before the giving of the Law. The Law then strengthened that which was already known, that sin might be seen as exceedingly sinful, Ro7.13. so that sin through the commandment might become exceedingly sinful. The sin against the image of God, which existed without Law, was magnified by the Law - double whammy and stronger, because it now also existed by record from the mouth and pen of God. At the giving of the Law God decided to add to 'the sin against the nature of Man, seen in the image of God', by stating a Law against it. It then became not only sin but exceeding sin.

I conclude that God had given law before the giving of the law at Sinai. This law was sparse. It failed to adequately provide a comprehensive moral code. This is my opinion/speculation. Others will speculate otherwise. Ro14 tells us to accept those with conclusions other than ours. It is my 'not being able to provide evidence thereto which doesn't exist' conclusion, that the moral code those people before Mt Sinai had was learned by examination of their conscience in relation to the image of God, and also from the deductive reasoning powers God gives all Men. Paul chastises the Gentiles in Ro1 for not recognizing God by way of the works of creation. They failed to use the intellect to recognize things of creation, to give God glory.

We have good evidence of the reality of the image of God in Man. We all have good personal evidence of the viability of our own conscience. The conscience will be consulted at the Last Judgment, adding great weight to the thought that it was active in providing a moral code for those before the Law was given.